Asklar v. Gilb, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 564

Asklar couple sues after 2008 wreck involving Indiana-registered tractor-trailer; Empire provides UM/UIM of $75,000 while liability is $5,000,000.
Vehicle was registered/principally garaged in Indiana; master policy issued by Empire for Werner Transportation (Georgia corporation).
Werner elected to reduce UM/UIM coverage to $75,000 prior to policy period; rejection must be in writing and effective date noted.
Plaintiffs argue Indiana law should govern UM/UIM coverage and amount; Empire argues Georgia law applies, limiting UM/UIM to $75,000.
Trial court granted Empire’s summary judgment ruling Georgia law applies and UM/UIM is $75,000; Asklars appeal.
On appeal, court affirms in part (Indiana law applies and UM/UIM $75,000) and reverses in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state's law governs UM/UIM and coverage amount?	Asklar s argue Indiana law applies.	Empire argues Georgia law governs.	Indiana law applies; UM/UIM is $75,000.
Whether the argument about choice of law was waived	Asklars did not waive; no binding admission.	Empire contends waiver.	Waiver not established; review allowed.
Whether UM/UIM coverage must be $75,000 or $5,000,000	Under Indiana law, UM/UIM should equal liability limits ($5,000,000).	Under Indiana law, rejection reduced UM/UIM to $75,000; valid written rejection.	UM/UIM limited to $75,000 under Indiana law due to valid written rejection.

Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (judicial admission requires clear, unequivocal admission of fact or claim element)
Stonington Ins. Co. v. Williams, 922 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (five-factor choice-of-law analysis acknowledged though not needed here)
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Beatty, 870 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (DePrizio rule: UM/UIM coverage must be negotiated or waived in policy terms)
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Sch., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007) (summary judgment standard; facts construed in nonmovant’s favor)